The American Bar Association rated Gorsuch as unanimously well-qualified, but Democrats criticized him for not revealing his personal judicial philosophy during confirmation as well as for several opinions they said showed he tended to favor powerful interests over “the little guy.”

He said replacing Gorsuch would be fair after Republicans refused to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing or a vote last year.

Schumer accused Republicans of being primarily responsible for cranking up the partisanship of the Supreme Court.

“We believe the Republican Party has been far more aggressive in the escalation of tactics and in the selection of extreme judicial candidates, while Democrats have tended to select judges closer to the middle,” he said on the floor Thursday morning.

Schumer pointed out through a parliamentary inquiry that in 1968, Justice Abe Fortas withdrew his name from consideration for chief justice after a filibuster.

He also noted through the parliamentarian that the Senate confirmed 25 of the past 26 Supreme Court nominees either without a vote or with strong bipartisan majorities of more than 60 votes.

Senators on both sides lamented the escalation of partisan tactics over Gorsuch’s nomination and warned it would erode the fabric of the institution, which has traditionally protected the rights of the minority party.

But Republicans said they wanted to seat Gorsuch on the court no matter what it took, praising him as an eminently qualified judge who a decade ago would likely have won strong bipartisan support for confirmation.

Times of have changed since the Senate confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, to the court in 2005 with an overwhelming vote of 78-22.

Then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) threatened to change the rules to strip Democrats of the power to filibuster judicial nominees.

Former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) at the time dubbed it the “nuclear option” because the notion of changing an important Senate precedent with a simple majority vote instead of 67 votes under regular order was viewed as a drastic escalation of tactics.

Frist held off from triggering it after a bipartisan group of senators known as the Gang of 14 struck a deal stating that judges should only be filibustered in “extraordinary circumstances.”